Okay this is really creepy stuff I think now. I just read a book "Enticed by the Light" about a woman who channeled 5 spirts as a psychic and when she tried to stop, they wouldn't let her and they turned into horrible oppression. She became a christian.
The website maker says that the selves all mean you well but that can't be true when you think about this woman's experience. They were harassing her. Sounds really terrible. I'm so glad she wrote this book. However, I think the website author is well-meaning. I like how he makes people aware of exactly what defense mechanisms they could be using by names but I wish I didn't post it. Since I have, I am writing this. I think these subselves could be dead people, who knows. The bible says to test the spirts and to focus on what is good. It says not to talk to dead people. Many people say it weakens them who have stopped the practice. The spirit of God is the voice of good and wisdom and that is all I need.

ahh, I'm getting different forums confused too! lol. I thought I posted orginally the sfhelp.org website and that is the website I was referring to. I believe in a version of what he talks about but I don't think that the subselves are all good or that we should think of them as different people. They may be dead people though but how many, we don't know. All we really can go by are defining the impulses on our end which he calls guardians, or defense mechanisms really. It is useful for showing how intial trigger emotions that he calls inner kids, will bring up "guardians" if not dealt with. I don't think they are guardians at all. However, it is teenage behavior level, when you deal with things out of stress and without too much thought. The guardians are supposed to protect the kids but I see it as that we have emotions that we are not dealing with propertly. I wish the church would talk about this more, without using shame or deliverance or ignoring the subject with newage like affirmations like I am the daughter of a king. It seems common sense is hard to come by. I like his definition of True self as these are similar to the fruits of the spirit. Sorry for the confusion, anyhow.

That is actually VERY interesting. Thanks for posting that. It looks like I've treated one of my issues using this approach, though I'd never heard of it before.

Going to post this not to debate religion, but to show this can be a VERY useful therapeutic tool.

Classic PTSD nightmares plagued me for years, I'd be waking up terrified several times a week, at times. They always revolved around past trauma, things that happened literally years in the past. I spent a long time wondering how exactly that works, why I was haunted by this stuff years after - then stumbled on the idea of subconscious desensitization. That something in my mind was generating nightmares, to make it easier to deal with the subject matter when it happened again during waking hours.

That idea meshes with the IFS idea of the various subpersonalities having positive intent, even if what they do is counterproductive. Seeing them as something separate from the self matches the whole concept...

But it's important to note, it is only a useful fiction. The language of psychology isn't quite up to the task, so an analogy is necessary. They are not demons, not dead people and not channeled spirits. Not alternate personalities. Instead they are complex thought processes that have become so automatic they've faded from awareness and sunk into the subcionscious. Just parts of the mind, which is a very complex thing, and they can also be complex.

Anyway, given the above, I talked to myself about it for three-four weeks. Not literally. Sometimes it'd be a few minutes of a day of just thinking about the idea. Sometimes meditation, sometimes stoned and usually sober. I told myself, or some part of myself anyway, "that was good, that was useful, but you may stop now." Eventually I woke up from one and instead of fear felt only a mild annoyance, turned over and went back to sleep.

Before, I suffered these nightmares often enough that I became afraid to sleep. Last year I noted them twice. This year, none so far.

Of course I wish you peace, and thanks.
Again. I'm not trying to attack you or your faith by posting any of this.

Quote:

I think this IFS stuff simplifies what is complicated spiritually but can be helpful, yet if you are trying to channel spirits, they are not the Holy Spiirt either. Its not something to forcus on but if we don't acknowledge it, we are numb and unaware. I'm really sorry what you have been through. I know what its like not to sleep. I acknowledge IFS stuff but I redirect to objective truths in the New Testament.

See, I'm not seeing a connection here. This is psychology, not channeling spirits. Actively choosing to assign a sort-of-personality to a portion of one's mind doesn't involve the supernatural at all, and I really don't see where in the New Testament or Old there is anything to tie these things together.

Let's consider the example of, since I'm drinking coffee right now, a drug addict. Someone suffering addiction could well benefit from saying to themselves 'this addiction is not part of my identity, my core self, my soul; it is something else.' The IFS model would classify this as one of the manager-type subpersonalities. This may make overcoming the addiction easier, and this is true in my experience. Craving comes up and one thinks 'oh. it's that thing again, that internal enemy that works against me.' This makes the craving easier to resist.

Whether it's the well understood psychological and physiological mechanisms of addiction, or something like an ingrained reply to years of abuse, the base idea is the same. Calling the problem area a distinct subpersonality is only an analogy that allows to control subconscious behavior.. it is a useful fiction.

And I am concerned that equating it with channeling spirits may block someone from a useful course of therapy and pain relief.

(edit) since you edited your post, I guess I'm going to drop the subject. I do hope you reconsider this however, it is not incompatible with your faith and can be extremely helpful. Anyway, good luck in dealing with your issues.

I only edited my post because I could not articulate everything I think so succinctly. It wasn't because of you and I am sorry I confuse you as well as others. But.. I think it can be helpful if it helps a person reject their thoughts that are not wanted truly or needed or a value they cherish.
The IFS guy is asking people to interview thiese subselves and that's where it turns out its like channeling and I'm not willing to do it and I don't mean to endorse it to anyone either.

But I would think that the coffee or drug addict is acting out of the guardian defense or the firefighting one depending on the IFS model you use, to keep the inner kid or exiles out of pain and not the manager personality that would help to do without it as that is the one that is the wise real self. But that's how I read it. Well both of us agree that it is a useful fiction however, as we both see more to the system. Thanks for responding.

Actually, I am appreciating the IFS website The only thing that creeped me out initially was interviewing the subselves which I won't do in detail as they would lie. Such as how old are you, what gender are you, where do you live. That's what turned me off. He has alot of good information otherwise. He presents a way of looking at our weaknesses in a way that is "nonshaming" and understanding ourself weaknesses.

Well.. in the end the person is only talking to themselves. The interview sounds like maaaybe a useful exercise in establishing that fictional bit of separation.. but it's still only part of the person doing the interviewing that responds.

If a person carries the fiction far enough, if they give a subpersonality a voice... the person can also take the voice away.

Not trying to persuade you to do something you're not comfortable with, though. I don't really like the idea of interviewing subselves that way either, I admit, but maybe for different reasons.

Well.. in the end the person is only talking to themselves. The interview sounds like maaaybe a useful exercise in establishing that fictional bit of separation.. but it's still only part of the person doing the interviewing that responds.

If a person carries the fiction far enough, if they give a subpersonality a voice... the person can also take the voice away.

Not trying to persuade you to do something you're not comfortable with, though. I don't really like the idea of interviewing subselves that way either, I admit, but maybe for different reasons.